Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate cause...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Se...
Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(vii). The key takeaway is that timely banking-channel payments pursuant to the agreement are crucial for claiming the benefit.
The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate caused the delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest major additions on merits.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 days violates mandatory provisions, rendering the notice and entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Section 151 is jurisdictional and must be from the correct authority. The entire reassessment was quashed for non-compliance.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The case examined whether share premium could be taxed without proof of unaccounted funds. The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot be invoked without establishing such inflow, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal relied on official certificates confirming that the land was located beyond municipal limits and classified as agricultural. Since agricultural land is excluded from capital asset definition, the addition made under Section 56 was deleted.
ITAT ruled that jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative. Since the notice was issued to a deceased assessee, the reassessment order was declared illegal.
